Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Failure to Provide Section 172(3) - TVP
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
pb47
Speeding Offence Committed 11 Mar 06: 70 mph in zone limited to 50mph on M4 - TVP.

NIP dated 22 Mar 06 received by wife (registered keeper).

She eventually responded 13 Jun 06 naming me as driver (after requesting photographic evidence etc).

I then received NIP dated 22 Jun 06 as named driver.

Received reminder dated 27 Jul 06 requesting info in next 14 days.

I wrote to them 1 Aug 06 requesting photographic evidence.

I wrote to them again 17 Aug 06 (did so by recorded post this time) to request photographic evidence (after returning from vacation) stating my disappointment that no response was given to my request of 01 Aug 06.

Pritchard then wrote back to me shortly after saying too late buddy, failure to provide, you'll be hearing from the courts.

Information laid 27 Sep 06 , summons served (posted) 11 Oct 06.

Some questions:

1) The hearing date is listed as one particular date in the summons and as a different date (10 days after) in the Notice to Defendant Section A. Can I use this clerical error for an easy get out (I don't know which date is correct, the summons or the notice to defendant).

2) In the evidence enclosed there are included images of the vehicle "at the time of the commission of the offence". Of course "the offence" is not speeding but failure to provide. Can this error be used for any gain at the hearing.

3) Can I use the fact that I asked for photographic evidence twice (once by recorded post) as evidence that I did try to determine the driver.

Any other top tips would be gratefully received
andy_foster
QUOTE (pb47 @ Fri, 13 Oct 2006 - 14:25) *
1) The hearing date is listed as one particular date in the summons and as a different date (10 days after) in the Notice to Defendant Section A. Can I use this clerical error for an easy get out (I don't know which date is correct, the summons or the notice to defendant).


Probably not

QUOTE
2) In the evidence enclosed there are included images of the vehicle "at the time of the commission of the offence". Of course "the offence" is not speeding but failure to provide. Can this error be used for any gain at the hearing.
Probably not

QUOTE
3) Can I use the fact that I asked for photographic evidence twice (once by recorded post) as evidence that I did try to determine the driver.


No. Assuming that you are not the person keeping the vehicle, that defence does not apply. You were required to provide any information that is in your power to give that might lead to the identification of the driver (which includes naming the driver if you knew who was driving).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.